Glee and Construction of Gay Men

My first piece for PopMatters was published while I was on vacation, so I'm a little remiss in publishing it here.  It takes a look at Kurt Hummel and the construction of gay men on television.  Enjoy!

Hetereonormalizing Gay Relationships

 I have (as is usual) been consuming a lot of media recently.  What is interesting is the amount of that media that works to heteronormalize gay relationships.  I've been catching up on Modern Family (a show I have really grown to enjoy and am teetering on the brink of calling myself a fan) and well, the gay relationship between and Cam and Mitchell is not so modern.  And it has nothing to do with the idea that they have not kissed, although there is a Facebook group of more than 13,000 people who want that to happen.  No, it has more to do with the way in which the producers of Modern Family have constructed this couple along "traditional" tropes of the family.  

White Washed Broadway

In the interest of full disclosure, I work in marketing and public relations and fully understand niche marketing.  That, however, in no way means that I like the concept or that I think it's valuable from a consumer/user perspective.    

The consumer me sees niche marketing as a ploy by companies to get me to spend my money and most of the time I tend to reject that sort of marketing/outright ploy.  The primary reason I do so, is that it rarely means that the company supports your "community" but rather that there is market research that shows you and your "community" are an "untapped market" or is a growing consumer segment.

What's with all the Lady GOGA?

It's always been my contention that female sexuality is far more fluid that male sexuality.  We've graduated from the days where lesbians were portrayed as psycho killers and have moved on to an era where the idea of lesbianism is primarily presented for the titillation of heterosexual men.  So, is it any wonder that we are bombarded with images of faux lesbianism in media?  From Chaka Khan and Patti LaBelle on the BET Awards to Miley Cyrus, female celebrities seem to be embracing their inner Lady G.O.G.A. (that's "girl on girl action" for the uninitiated.)

Why I Hate CNN: Gay in America

I will tell anyone who listens that I detest CNN (and all the other 24 hour news networks including CNBC, MSNBC and FOX News) because I believe they do a disservice to Americans seeking unbiased news coverage.  But my recent giant glass of ice cold Haterade is lifted to CNN not necessarily for being biased, but for simply being dumb.  Now, I am never one to deny someone a check, so hats off to Soledad O'Brien for getting hers, but really CNN?  You have the nerve to call a series Gay in America and then treat us (and I use the word VERY loosely) to a documentary on one gay couple's (anticlimactic) journey to having a baby. 

Where's the Rainbow?

I watched a documentary on LOGO called The Butch Factor on logo which purported to examine ideas (and ideals) about masculinity among gay men.  What struck me when watching was that the documentary presented a monolithic idea of masculinity, or to speak in the film's terms, butchness.  The masculine men played sports, participated in rodeos and were police officers while the less butch (read: feminine) representations were of men who had more artsy professions.

Police Brutality in Seattle

In what can only be described as an abuse of power, a Seattle Police Officer kicked a suspect in the head once he was already on the ground and being compliant.  As if that weren't enough, it turns out that the man, who was suspected of committing a robbery by the police, was innocent.  Now, of course, the office has gone on his "I'm Sowwy Tour" apologizing for saying he would "kick the Mexican piss" out of the suspect (but not for kicking him in the head).  There is a line between doing your job and being an asshole and this office crossed that line. Is it any wonder that many members of minority groups dislike and/or fear the police?    

Rip out the Front Page: Breaking News! Journalism isn't Neutral Says Professor

I mean, really?  Did we really need someone to tell us that the "news" we receive isn't neutral? Despite the claims of shows and networks to have "No Bias, No Bull" and be "Fair and Balanced" the opposite is true. This goes for both right and left media.  As Pierre Bourdieu tells us in his fantastic book On Television

"It explains why real information, analysis, in-depth interviews, expert discussions, and serious documentaries lose out to pure entertainment and, in particular, mindless talk show chatter between 'approved' and interchangeable speakers."

Unpacking a Racist Harvard E-mail

A friend of mine tipped me off to this e-mail that purported to defend the idea that black people are genetically less intelligent than other people (presumably, mainly white people).  I won't even try to unpack this nonsense because Feministe does it far better than I could.    It's a long read, but it's well worth the time and energy to do so.  Unfortunately, these are the kinds of serious, and well-informed conversations that need to be had about race in America, but that we simply are not well-equipped enough to have.  But is more troubling is that, as Feministe points out, this woman is going to be charged with making and upholding the law some day. No doubt, those who believe in her particular brand of "logical" thought will herald her as one who reads the law as it was written while those who seek to uphold the rights of those less advantaged will be seen as "activist judges."   

Today in "People Are Stupid" News

Humans never cease to amaze me with their idiotic actions.  This story out of Australia may actually take the cake (at least for the day) in stupid people doing/saying stupid things.  A visually impaired man was refused service at a Thai restaurant because staff thought his dog was a gay dog versus a guide dog.  Really?  A gay dog?  How does that work in the real world? The store's owners claim that the waiter thought the dog had been desexed to become a gay dog (which proves again that people are stupid as if that had happened the dog would be asexual, not gay).  And that, my friends, is what's new in "People are Stupid" news today.

Liberal Special Interests vs. The "Right" Thing to do

I can't figure out why supporting social issues is a "liberal special interest" but being opposed is "right." (Sarcasm)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/us/politics/17hospitals.html

Framing Homosexuality and Pedophilia

This week has been terribly interesting to watch the story about sexual abuse and the Catholic church unfold (again).  What's interesting is how approved "talking heads" (and the media by sanctioning/allowing their viewpoints) have worked to frame the Catholic church's problem as not one of pedophilia, but as one of homosexuality.  In other words, the media is complicit in recycling misinformation by continuing to allow certain guests on their programs and, in large part, failing to correct the misinformation.  As the brilliant Pierre Bourdieu states in his work On Television, 

"There is a backstage process of shaping the group that ends up in the studio for the show, beginning with the preliminary decision about who gets invited and who doesn't... The set is there in front of viewers, and what they see hides what they don't see-- and what they don't  see in this constructed image, are the social conditions of its construction." (Bourdieu, 34)

Black Women and Hair

My mother is currently undergoing treatment for breast cancer. While undergoing chemotherapy, like most people, she lost her hair. As a man, it wasn't really a big deal to me, (I thought she had a great bald head and could, as Tyra Banks would say, "rock it!" but to her, it was a big deal.

Hair is so important to women (and to culture). As I mentioned in a previous post, hair, particularly among some black women, is of the utmost importance. I really started to notice how much hair meant to some women when I got stuck in an America's Next Top Model Cycle 6 hole a few weekends ago. Jade, a self proclaimed "biracial butterfly" kept belaboring the point that she didn't have long hair (skip to 1:11 and 1:30 in the video below for evidence).



Then I saw this photo from Huffington Post that showed a bald woman starting a fashion show in India.


The accompanying headline was "Bald Model Kicks Off Lakme Fashion Show." And it literally stopped me in my tracks. Without the qualifier "bald" the headline is unremarkable. We are to believe that something about baldness is remarkable. In this case we're supposed to say, "A bald model? It can't be done!" And ooh and ahh over the novelty of it all. Certainly, this could have been a PR stunt meant to drum up publicity, but the fact is that it worked. Why does hair equal femininity/femaleness in our culture? Why is hair, particularly long hair so rooted in ideas about attractiveness? When asked why she shaved her head, the model said she just felt like it. Maybe all women should just do what feels right to them when it comes to their hair rather than worrying about what others (particularly suitors) think.

And while it's often assumed (or at least theorized) that black women straighten their hair to submit to European ideas about beauty, it's interesting that in the film, Something New, that it is a white man who asks his black girlfriend why she wears a weave:

Brian: Can I ask you one more question?
Kenya: Hmm?
Brian: [grabs a piece of her hair] Can you take this off?
Kenya: [opens eyes] What do you mean?
Brian: I mean, its not a wig, right? But its not your real hair either, is it?
Kenya: [stares at him for a moment, then sits up] I can't believe you just asked me that.
Brian: I'm sorry, I'm just curious.
Kenya: Its a weave, if you must know. I thought you dated black girls.
Brian: They had real hair.
Kenya: I have real hair too.
Brian: Underneath?
Kenya: Yes, underneath!
Brian: So what, they just... they sew it in?
Kenya: Something like that.

What is Maleness and Femaleness?

There's no need to rip out the front page when I say that we live in a gendered society. And even though we are more than 100 years past the events most often associated with the start of the Women's Rights Movement and about 50 years from the start of second wave feminism, gendering all things in life is, unfortunately alive and well.

As a male, I sometimes forget just how gendered society is and on the occasion that I do forget, it's usually something like the image for this week's cover of Life & Style magazine that slaps me back into reality. In the interest of framing, Life & Style is not The New Yorker. But with a circulation of nearly 500,000, it is certainly worth taking seriously from a media message dissemination perspective (not to mention the millions of people who at least see the headline as they are checking out at the grocery store).

This article is particularly egregious by implying that there are things that are uniquely male and those that are uniquely female -- namely haircuts. Or more to the point, it seems that the editors of Life & Style are implying that short hair equals masculine. While it extends far beyond the issue of race, the trailer from Chris Rock's film Good Hair, provides a great example of how hair is constructed as feminine.



Certainly, from a Marxist perspective one can look at hair as a capitalist endeavor that lines the pockets of beauticians and manufacturers (bourgeoisie) who specialize in hair extensions and weaves while simultaneously exploiting those (proletariat) women in other countries who sometimes cut their hair for religious reasons only to have it sold/used for capitalist reasons. And let's be clear, women of all races and ethnicities participate in this marketplace.

But beyond that, our society is set us as a host of binaries that always privilege one binary over the other: Men/Women. Heterosexual/Homosexual. White/Black. These binaries help us to frame things where we define things by what they are not. In other words, a woman is not a man or a homosexual is not heterosexual -- effectively setting up those things that are "not" as somehow deviant or less than the thing to which they are being compared.

So, why is Shiloh Jolie-Pitt considered less female because she has shorter hair? Why can't she rock a pair of jeans and a polo without having her "girlness" called into question? And most importantly, why would Life & Style question whether or not her (and her parent's) refusal to wholeheartedly adapt to gender norms might somehow harm her?

Certainly, Life & Style knows that news about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt sells magazines, but they also have to be aware that they are helping to brainwash a nation of people into believing that by wearing certain things, or looking a certain way you are able (and rightly should) perform gender. And as icing on the cake, Life & Style also have a story about how Vienna "tricked" Jake on The Bachelor positioning her as cunning and sneaky -- but that's another conversation altogether.

A Kiss is Still a Kiss: White Heteronormativity and the movie Valentine's Day

Garry Marshall you owe me $6!

Every bad experience is supposed to be a learning experience, right? So, I learned something from the cinematic crap fest called Valentine's Day. But I'm sure it's nothing that the writers, actors or producers expected me to get out of it. As someone who studies representation of both black people and gay people in media, I never expected Valentine's Day to shed any light on my studies, but it did -- and I guess that makes it worth the $6 I wasted seeing it. For the first half (or so) of this seemingly three hour movie I noticed that neither Jamie Foxx or Queen Latifah were getting any romantic play. Jamie Foxx's character was too cynical to be romantically involved and Queen Latifah's character was focused on her career. But then toward the end of the movie, Jamie Foxx became interested in Jessical Biel, culminating in an interracial kiss. The problem? "The kiss" was shot in such a way that you couldn't really see their lips becoming one, but just had the "idea" that they were kissing. I tried finding an image of said kiss, but when I put in the search terms Jamie Foxx Jessica Biel kiss, the first result was this and after scrolling through five pages still didn't see a screencap.


According to Erica Chito Childs, author of Fade to Black and White, "interracial stories may be appealing to show without mentioning race, and in particular, by showing interracial possibilities that promote the idea that society is color-blind while affirming the problems with crossing the color-blind color line." But by the way in which the sole interracial kiss was filmed in Valentine's Day, it shows that there is still taboo as well as perhaps some revulsion related to interracial couplings. And while the relationship was new, it's also interesting to note that they are one of the only couples not shown in bed together.

Viewers were also supposed to be shocked by Eric Dane's character's admission that he is gay and is subsequently in some kind of relationship with Bradley Cooper. The what, where or how of the relationship is never explained or defined but they're two gay characters in a movie so they must be together, right? But what is also cowardly about the portrayal of this relationship is that it is played solely for shock value. We were supposed to be shocked when we find out that Eric Dane is gay and then shocked again that Eric Dane and Bradley Cooper are a couple. And how do we know they are a couple? Because Bradley Cooper walks in and brushes a flower on Eric Dane's cheek while he's sleeping. When Eric Dane awakes they don't kiss, they just look at each other lovingly and then we fade to the next scene. While every other couple (including high school students) is shown kissing at some point.

I don't expect gayness in every movie I see (in fact, I'd probably hate it) but when you are going to have gay characters, at least have them kiss and don't just use it as a tactic to (allegedly) shock your audience. It very well may have been a shot at inclusiveness (after all, Valentine's Day is a film with a multicultural cast), but don't include a gay couple and then cop out. Sure, it may have outraged a few heterosexual viewers whose delicate palate is offended by seeing two dirty homos kissing (unless it's Jessica Biel and Jessica Alba or two equally hot women), but either go all the way or leave it out. Frankly, Valentine's Day was so craptastic, that it could have been left out entirely and the movie would have remained its level of crappiness.

The Importance of the Written and Spoken Word

In school we were told that the construction of survey questions is very important. We're told to focus the questions, make them as brief and clear as possible. And while there isn't a ton of emphasis put on the actual words you're using (other than to say that you must use words that most people would be able to define) the results of this survey by New York Times/CBS shows researchers that they might want to pay a little more attention to word selection. You see, the approval for allowing gay or homosexual people to serve in the military depends on what you call them. The poll found that 70 percent of those polled favor (either strongly favor or somewhat favor) allowing gay men and lesbians to serve in the military while only 59 percent of respondents favor (either strongly favor or somewhat favor) allowing homosexuals to serve in the military.




I heard Michelangelo Signorile posit that the numbers could be lower because the word "homosexual" mentions the word sex and makes respondents think about sex between two men (because that presumably is where the mind goes for images of repulsion, rather than lesbian sex). I'm not so sure that I completely agree with his argument, but what I think the real takeaway for researchers as well as people in general is that words matter. We have to be a lot more careful about the words we use in order to clearly convey what we really want to say. Some people brush things off as being purely about semantics, but as this poll shows, it's not just semantics, some words truly rub people the wrong way and cause them to react more negatively.

Is this the Institution of Marriage We're Supposed to be Protecting?

Marriage equality seems to most often be a fight happening in the courtrooms and at the ballot boxes in America. And we've had seen celebrities like Sarah Silverman say that she will not get married until all people are allowed to get married. And on one hand, it's a very noble stand to take. However, I have to take my hat off to an Orlando artist, Brian Feldman, who simply said he was willing to marry any woman who showed up at the courthouse to shed light on the idiocy of excluding gay men and lesbians from the institution.

There is no way that he can legally be stopped from marrying a total stranger who is also a woman. There (presumably) is no mention of love or no mention of him being selective in any way. He didn't say the woman needed to be attractive, needed to want to start a family or anything -- just be willing to get married to him. Is it a publicity stunt, sure. But the best publicity stunts are the ones that make us laugh and then make us think. If two complete strangers can go get a marriage license and then get married, what is really the harm in allowing to adults of the same sex to do so as well?

Many will argue that marriage is the building block of the family structure to which I have two counterpoints: 1) there are children born every day to single women and are often raised without contact from their biological father; and 2) there are couples who simply choose not to have children even when they are married. In fact, according to a 2007 Pew Research Center survey, Forty-one percent of Americans said children are "very important" to a successful marriage -- down from from 65 percent in 1990.

Lastly, and I think this is the most important point of all, who does it really bother and how are individuals affected? If there are hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian married couples in the world, how does that affect any of us? If we are heterosexual, does allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry destabilize our relationships? I don't think it logically can (unless you were married to a person who had same sex attraction to begin with).

The Super Bowl and Stereotypes of Gay Black Men

I visited the blog Joe.My.God as I often do on a daily basis for gay news and came across a post that featured a video from In Living Color and their Men On... skit with a Super Bowl Theme.  One on hand, I must admit that when watching this skit as a young child, I never thought twice about it.  The skits made me uncomfortable as a gay young man (although I couldn't yet articulate that I was gay) but I thought nothing of the depiction the show constructed of gay black men.



My problems with the skit originated much later in life when I began to study representations of minority groups on television. Some people, on the rare occasion that I post comments on blogs, dismiss me as being overly analytical and in the case of this video assumed that no one looked to In Living Color to provide role models. And while that may be true that no one is actively seeking a role model from the show, the reinforcement of negative stereotypes about gay men (and black gay men specifically) cannot be brushed aside.

Noted cultural scholar and sociologist Herman Gray in his fantastic book Watching Race says, "This sketch and others features Antoine and Blaine activate and engage crucial debates about identity, sexuality, and desire within the discourse of blackness. Although the sketches are not specifically about gay black men, the body, dress, language and gestures are deliberately organized to construct and covey something about the characters' identities. Moreover, and perhaps this helps to account for their resonance, these parodies and the strategies of representations on which they depend join historical contemporary debates and representations in the black community about homophobia, black men, masculinity, sexuality and drag queens."

I believe that whether we want to believe it or not, television is a major socialization factor for us. It teaches us how to be and how not to be. Representations like those found in the Men On... sketches from In Living Color help to underscore why gay men and women are (and should remain) second-class citizens. Men On... makes gay men effeminate (in both demeanor and dress) and lecherous and helps some in the show's largely black audience reinforce their hatred for all things gay.

Bisexual Characters on TV

Here is a story for which I was interviewed about bisexual characters on TV.

Weight a Minute

Full Disclosure: I am not a woman or a teenage girl. But I do pay attention to media messages and while I have been known to abstractly discuss issues regarding body issues among friends, I can rarely point to specific instances because they all tend to blur. On my Facebook page, I railed against Giuliana Rancic for comments she made to Kathy Griffin who essentially said she looked good because she was starving herself to which Giuliana replied that it didn't matter as long as she looked good. I vented about it and then I got over it. Well my dander was raised again last night upon watching Project Runway. On one hand, we know that runway models are tinier than most women and that when fashion designers choose to use what they call "normal" sized models (whatever the hell that is) a controversy ensues. But it somehow rubbed me the wrong way to have designers on a reality TV show bitching about having to work with "real women." The first slap down is, "Hello! You're on a reality show known for challenges designed to stress you out!" and then secondly, do you plan to make ANY money as a designer? If the answer is yes, then you're going to have to make things in a larger size than a 2.

What it boils down to is that it says that if you are a woman and can't fit into a sample size (usually a 2 or 4) that somehow fashion is not for you. To watch many of the designers struggle to make a dress that flattered a woman who isn't shaped like a prepubescent boy was truly infuriating. And when Tyra Banks allows "plus sized" models on America's Next Top Model (although no winner has ever really reached the "top") it reinforces the problem. Tyra Banks will often say she is trying to change the industry, but what she ends up doing when these women like Whitney (the eventual winner of Cycle 10) or Tocarra (from Cycle 3) are in the competition is reinforce the idea that they shouldn't be in high fashion because the designers with whom they are working often don't have any clothes (or unflattering ones) that will fit them.